Essay About North Carolina Corrections Policy And State Court

Justice Case
Justice Case
Elvira GawlinskiInstructor Mark BrumleyEnglish 112 NMedical Furloughs: Do They Serve Justice?State Court Upholds Gay ‘Marriage’ Supremes Rule That State May Confiscate Homes, Sell to Another Private PartyIn Interest of ‘Economic Development’ Hill Slips ‘Hate Crimes’ RiderInto New Defense Spending BillWith recent headlines such as these, it seems that “justice” resides increasingly in the hands of judges and lawmakers, rather than in the blindfolded lady holding a balance scale. Justice becomes a free-for-all: one man’s justice is another man’s tyranny. [pic 1]And so it is with the recently adopted North Carolina corrections policy of granting release to terminally ill inmates. To the families of the inmates, release allowing an inmate to die at home is an act of mercy. To the loved ones of the inmate’s victims, the policy is an outrage. And to the state, it is a matter of saving money. During fiscal year 2006, North Carolina spent an average of $1,284 on health care for inmates under 50 years of age. For those over 50, the tab came to $5,425 (Mark Johnson).  Caring for terminally ill convicts costs Alabama (and presumably other states) some $60,000 a year (Marty Rones).[pic 2]A technicality in the law allows this early release for inmates sentenced to life in prison. In North Carolina law, “life” is defined as 80 years. But for each day of “good behavior,” one day is whittled from the 80 years. With enough good behavior time, 80 years can reduce to 40 (Martha Waggoner, North County Times).  About a hundred North Carolina inmates are due to be released on medical furlough in the coming months (Waggoner, The Associated Press). North Carolina is not alone in implementing such a policy. In fact, 36 states permit infirm or dying inmates an early release (Roney). Without a doubt, fiscal considerations enter into such decisions. Instead of paying for an inmate’s care in his dying days, the state shifts responsibility to the inmate’s family or, much more commonly, to another jurisdiction—usually the federal government and a deeper pool of taxpayers.That would seem to be a mercenary motive for such a release policy. But is there something else, a consideration of mercy? America is well known for her generosity of spirit and her kindness to the downtrodden (“Give me your tired and your poor. . . .”)—characteristics not associated with, say, Mexico or Saudi Arabia, or, for that matter, France or Russia. Such mercy, however, does not sit well with the criminals’ victims, especially in as much as a group of life-term North Carolina criminals set to freedom will mostly have no post- release supervision (Waggoner, North County Times). “This animal took the lives of two innocent people and should not be released, said the daughter of a woman murdered in the 1970s. “He’s out after 33 years, and Mom’s dead.” (Waggoner, The Associated Press)